NZ tour of India
-
Obviously depends on the pitch but I wouldn’t be totally surprised to see an unchanged side
Which of the spinners do you leave out? Ravindra? But then you lengthen the tail
One of Ajaz or Somerville and your effectively going in with one specialist spinner
I guess Kanes elbow injury precludes him bowling. Shame I think he’d do a holding role better than any of our spinners
Personally I’d bring Wags in but I’d have had him in this Test ahead of Timmee so clearly I know nothing.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
I guess Kanes elbow injury precludes him bowling. Shame I think he’d do a holding role better than any of our spinners
I think his elbow bend precludes his bowling. Which is a pity - he had some really useful offies to biff down
-
For me Sommerville gets replaced by Wags. Forget the last innings batting effort, how many wickets did he take? 0
Ravindra holds his spot for ironically batting, just you cant have both and at least Ajaz can take wickets.
-
@bayimports said in NZ tour of India:
For me Sommerville gets replaced by Wags. Forget the last innings batting effort, how many wickets did he take? 0
Ravindra holds his spot for ironically batting, just you cant have both and at least Ajaz can take wickets.
pretty well it. Yuo have to choose two of the three spinners, and if Wags playing, then Rachindra gets the nod on batting and as the fifth bowler. Patel gets it for looking slightly more threatening.
Tough on Will Somemeville, but that's life
-
@nzzp said in NZ tour of India:
@dogmeat said in NZ tour of India:
I guess Kanes elbow injury precludes him bowling. Shame I think he’d do a holding role better than any of our spinners
I think his elbow bend precludes his bowling. Which is a pity - he had some really useful offies to biff down
He’s just lazy. He’s only captain and the best batsman. He should really contribute with his bowling as well.
-
@mn5 said in NZ tour of India:
@cyclops said in NZ tour of India:
I like Nicholls, but with Young, Conway and Ravindra now behind him he's under pressure.
I think he'll get the home summer and if he can't produce will be replaced. I had the same feeling last year and he produced that big century against the West Indies I think. The selectors definitely have a pattern of preferring to play guys for a couple of games too many rather than dumping them too soon. I like it and I think it's been a part of our recent success.
Yeah Nicholls will plunder a massive score at home. That’s a given.
That, or we'll face some sides that can catch this summer.
-
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
-
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
-
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
-
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
Well he didn't get much practice in this last test.
Best prep is time in the middle.
-
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
Where has he been playing?
-
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
Where has he been playing?
-
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30th -
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@canefan said in NZ tour of India:
@act-crusader said in NZ tour of India:
@hooroo said in NZ tour of India:
@rotated said in NZ tour of India:
@mariner4life said in NZ tour of India:
nice bit of tail end heroics and all but
we were in position like 3 different times to ram home an advantage and we gave it up each time. We're better than fighting draws, even in india. We let them off the hook repeatedly.
Winning in India is fucking hard (see dogmeat above) so when you get a sniff you need to be ruthless.
It was semi-predictable though given the undercooked middle order and having only really two and a half test quality bowlers. But like you my hopes were certainly up at 150/0 and then at 51/5.
All in all for the first match in an away series against a big 3 side I will take a draw all day, especially after losing the toss. Flush the dunny, move on and pick Wags for the second test.
Am I being ridiculous in being quietly confident for the next test? We now have had a decent warm-up in the conditions and we are going to a wicket that won't be as harsh for us?
Wagner bowling 50+ overs and at least one of Taylor or Nichols being due for some runs.We might get to enforce a follow-on if we win the toss
Wagner will definitely help our bowling, but I’m still concerned about putting up enough runs.
I think we have to stick with Nicholls and Taylor. They are underdone which doesn't help. Swapping Mitchell in would be a bold gamble
Nicholls isnt underdone.
Where has he been playing?
He had 2 rounds of Plunket Shield before leaving. Same as most of the others. (plus the white ball tour of Bangladesh and whatever training they managed in Pakistan)
The underdone guys are the 3 caught in lockdowns (Taylor plus the 2 spinners) and Will Young who was injured and missed the 2 rounds of Plunket Shield.
-
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
-
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers. -
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
@rapido said in NZ tour of India:
@crucial said in NZ tour of India:
A little side stat I looked up out of curiosity.
Best test average for bowlers with minimum 50 wickets.
Our boy Kyle is 3rd on the alltime list BUT, and here's the interesting part. He is easily first of players from this century and easily first over the past two centuries. Most of the top of the list got their records in the 1800s!
Players who have played in the 2000s
1 Jamieson 15.06 - 3rd alltime
2 Ambrose (just sneaks in having played in 2000) 20.99 - 20th alltime
3 Cummins 21.6 - 26th alltime
4 Hasan Ali 21.69 - 28th
5 Shane Bond 22.09 - 30thHe's good. But he's no Axar Patel ....
averaging 11.24
After 4 matches all in the conditions he grew up in?
He's a fine bowler but that's why you put a minimum of wickets (50) or matches on cricket stats to see if the results contain outliers.For sure. Axar is no Jamieson. It's unlikely he will play an overseas test (or non-Asian test) until / unless Jadeja or Ashwin retire or are injured.
But the 50 over threshold you've used is a bit false. There have been other players who have rushed to 50 wickets but who's careers then flattened out more to the norm and therefore who's averages at that moment in time aren't captured in your list.
The may or may not be as good as Jamieson's of 15ish, I can't remember. But off the top of my head I recall Philander and Brett Lee racing ahead early with bowling averages in the teens.
-
I'll look it up ...
Brett Lee races to 42 wickets in 7 tests at an average of 16.07.Then he broke his elbow throwing from the boundary. Had a bit of a break and returned in an away ashes.
Then took him another 4 tests to get the next 8 wickets to pass 50. Ballooned out to 11 tests, 50 wickets, average of 21.96 (and it continued in that direction).
